Re: Do we want a hashset type?

Has anyone put this in a git repo / extension package or similar ?

I’d like to try it out outside the core pg tree.

> On 1 Jul 2023, at 12:04 PM, Joel Jacobson <joel(at)compiler(dot)org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2023, at 06:50, jian he wrote:
>> more like a C questions
>> in this context does
>> #define HASHSET_GET_VALUES(set) ((int32 *) ((set)->data +
>> CEIL_DIV((set)->capacity, 8)))
>> define first, then define struct int4hashset_t. Is this normally ok?
>
> Yes, it's fine. Macros are just text substitutions done pre-compilation.
>
>> Also does
>> #define HASHSET_GET_VALUES(set) ((int32 *) ((set)->data +
>> CEIL_DIV((set)->capacity, 8)))
>>
>> remove (int32 *) will make it generic? then when you use it, you can
>> cast whatever type you like?
>
> Maybe, but might be less error-prone more descriptive with different
> macros for each type, e.g. INT4HASHSET_GET_VALUES,
> similar to the existing PG_GETARG_INT4HASHSET
>
> Curious to hear what everybody thinks about the interface, documentation,
> semantics and implementation?
>
> Is there anything missing or something that you think should be changed/improved?
>
> /Joel
>
>